I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By making this application, under Section 482, Cr.PC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is accused in CR case No. 7774C/2007, has sought for setting aside and quashing the complaint, which has been filed by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation ('the GMC'), whereby the complainant has sought for prosecution of the present petitioner, as accused, under Section 417A(ii) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 ('the GMC Act'), and also directing issuance of process against the petitioner as accused.

2. The ground of challenge to the sustainability of the complaint, in question, is that Section 417A(ii)of the GMC Act has come into force on 21.8.2006, which provides that if any builder or promoter or owner erects or constructs or occupies any building in contravention of the provisions of the GMC Act, the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, except the provisions of compoundable limit as provided in the bye-laws, he shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term of six months along with a fine of rupees ten thousand. According to the present petitioner, the construction of the building, in question, was already over before Section 417A(ii) came into force. In other words, what the petitioner contends is that for the contravention, if any, of the provisions of the GMC Act, rules and bye-laws relevant to the construction of the said building, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 417A(ii), because the contravention, if any, had existed, according to the petitioner, prior to the coming into force of Section 417A(ii).

3. I have heard Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. B.S. Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have also heard Mr. D Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, GMC.

4. Before entering into the merit of the present petition, what needs to be noted is that the case of the complainant, as reflected from the complaint, in question, is, in brief, thus: The petitioner, while undertaking the construction of the apartment, known as Naboday Apartment, has raised construction, in violation of the permission granted and thereby contravened the provisions of the GMC Act, 1971, and the building bye-laws relevant thereto, the violation having taken place even as late as in the year 2007.

5. From what have been pointed out above, it becomes clear that while it is the case of the complainant that the present petitioner has violated the conditions imposed on him, while granting him permission to raise the construction, in question, such violation having been done even after the Section 417A(ii) had come into force, the contention of the accused is that the violation, if any, was done by the petitioner before Section 417A(ii) had come into force and, hence, his prosecution is not permissible in law.

6. There is no dispute before me that if the alleged violation was committed by the present petitioner before Section 417A(ii) came into force, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for having raised the construction, though he might have been prosecuted, had he occupied and continued to have occupied, as an occupant, the building constructed in contravention of the provisions of the GMC Act, 1971, the rules and bye-laws made thereunder.

7. The law with regard to quashing of criminal complaint is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R.P Kapoor v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, wherein the question, which arose for consideration was whether a first information report can be quashed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out; Gajendragadkar, J, speaking for the court, however, observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings, instituted against an accused, must be tried under tho provisions of the Code, th